The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nagina (1951 film)[edit]

Nagina (1951 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews were found. All citations are passing mentions are focus on the actors/actresses involved with just mentions of them appearing in this film. Nothing better was found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with "satisfies WP:GNG", but I don't think 3 one line mentions in books that focus on the actors passes WP:GNG, and nothing else was added to show that it does. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable and there are plenty of sources available; needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article is now peoperly expanded. Donaldd23, you might want to consider withdrawing the nomination. Please have a look at it following my edits. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been further expanded and is now even qualified for DYK. Donaldd23, if you can have another look to reconsider your stand, that'll be good. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the updates made by Shshshsh, the article appears to be passing WP:NFILM at this point. Even if plenty of reviews aren't found for the movie, the page may be kept as per WP:NFSOURCES. Cirton (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, keep per WP:HEY—the article looks to be in decent shape with regard to necessary sourcing. Nicely done, Shshshsh :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn, I withdraw my nomination based on the citations that have been added. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am happy to undelete if any actual significant coverage is located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Emmermann[edit]

Karl Emmermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem like a notable person. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, this person is only originally mentioned very passingly in a work by Marx and Engels, and subsequent sources based on that are similarly passing (like just dropping his name and that's it). There is no corresponding article in any other language Wikipedia.

n.b. There is a later U-boat captain with the same name, so don't let that confuse you in search. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Germany. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can expand the article to provide substantial content. At present all we have is probably the quotation of a footnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some sources, which are possibly secondary or tertiary references on Marx's life and work and include Karl Emmermann's references. It is hard to believe that such a historical person if was so insignificant had such mentions in multiple occasions in scholarly discourses. Besides, we need to be considerate when trying to find digital reference of a person from nineteenth century. Cirton (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But there's still zero biographical detail about him, where he was born, educated, died etc. or even why Marx mentioned him. Mztourist (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. revision can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 15:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Institute[edit]

American Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is a list of WP:Partial title matches, and such a list does not constitute a disambiguation page: none of the entries are known solely as "American Institute". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but revert to 2014 version which listed two bodies which were genuinely "American Institute" (and any other similar), and add "See also" section with ((look from)) and ((in title)) links to pick up the PTMs, with edit notes to remind editors not to clutter it up with inappropriate entries again. PamD 07:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PamD. --Doncram (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 15:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raaste Pyar Ke[edit]

Raaste Pyar Ke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a BEFORE to meets the notability guidelines. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Hinduism, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema includes it in significant works of Shabana Azmi and Om Puri, Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema for Jeetendra, Azmi etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redtigerxyz (talk • contribs)
• Keep - per above. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per article improvements. (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper Stumpers[edit]

Bumper Stumpers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Bumper Stumpers" + "Al DuBois" returned literally nothing on newspapers.com. The only source I could find besides the TV encyclopedia already cited in the article is the Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. And two encyclopedia listings whose combined content doesn't take up half a printed page are not WP:SIGCOV. It's a shame too, because I actually remember liking this show as a kid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I remember this one. Passing mentions in GBooks [1], a few hits on the host. Could be re-directed to Global, the network that aired it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nearly all of those are false positives for other things called "bumper stumpers". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably cobble enough together for a re-write. I'll take a look later today. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Spence, Rick (1988-10-08). "The true-life adventure of a Bumper Stumpers contestant Game shows there's no such thing as easy cash". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01.

     The article notes: "My wife and I were touring the Canadian National Exhibition a year ago, when we discovered auditions for a new game called Bumper Stumpers. If you could guess the meaning of puzzles based on imaginary vanity licence plates, you could win $1,000 or more. As an expert at watching for real-life plates like GRADU8 or 2TH MD (dentist) when driving, I suggested we give it a try. Inside, we and 60 other hopefuls learned that Bumper Stumpers was the highest-rated game show on the USA network, and would start soon on Global TV. Then we played a pretend game and took a written test. The audition cost us an hour that might have been spent winning stuffed frogs on the midway, but we marked it down as an investment."

  2. "Bumper Stumpers". Lambda. Vol. 38, no. 17. 2000-02-03. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Internet Archive.

     This is an article from a student newspaper at Laurentian University. The article notes: "Bumper Stumpers made its debut on June 29, 1987 over the USA cable network. The show was a joint venture of Barry-Enright Productions & Wink Martindale Enterprises, Inc.; it was the second game show Wink created ... BS was taped at the Global Television Studios in Toronto, Canada, & was hosted by Al DuBois, a popular Toronto TV personality. BS was played by two teams of two contestants (married couples, siblings, friends, co-workers, etc.), who competed by trying to figure out the meanings of personalized licence plates."

  3. Less significant coverage:
     1. Smith, Diane (1990-01-06). "The lure of loot and lucre". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-05-01. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via Gale.

        The article provides several sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Thirty-eight hundred dollars for just a few hours work, most of it sitting and waiting. Two Ryerson students earned that amount recently on a Canadian television game show called Bumper Stumpers. ... On Bumper Stumpers, a maximum cash prize of $10,500 is up for grabs for anyone who can decipher cryptic licence lates (if BBRNTBB looks like 'To be or not to be', give the folks at Global a call. Like all shows, they're clambering for contestants and audiences).

     2. Strachan, Alex (2006-10-24). "Deal or No Deal comes to the country that brought you Supermarket Sweep". National Post. Retrieved 2022-05-01 – via PressReader.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Sixteen years after the cancellation of Bumper Stumpers, true gaming excitement is returning to Canada."

     3. "Updates on 'Sacred Straight'". The Cincinnati Enquirer. 1987-04-26. ProQuest 1895812218.

        The article provides several sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Veteran game show host Wink Martindale has turned producer with Bumper Stumpers, a new game show for cable's USA Network. ... Canadian TV personality Al Dubois hosts the show, which premieres June 20."

     4. Florak, Hal (1987-09-25). "Games". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 299, no. 5. ProQuest 2594677981.

        The article provides several sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Bumper Stumpers features contestants playing for cash prizes as they attempt to guess the message or meaning on personalized "vanity" license plates. Produced by Barry & Enright Prods. in association with Wink Martindale Enterprises exclusively for the USA Network."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bumper Stumpers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of those seem to be passing mentions of the show decades after the fact. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most? That's not the standard. I'm not sure why you haven't retracted this yet. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is a local-interest story. Source 2 just name-drops the show in one sentence. Source 3 is also just a name-drop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of them are dated during the show's run, and any hit not dated 1987-1990 (which is, again, a minority of them) serves as proof that the show was still remembered and discussed years after its cancellation. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 source says literally nothing about the show other than that it existed. Is that really WP:SIGCOV to you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with what I said, which is that your assertion that the majority of Nfitz's sources were dated from the 2000s was incorrect since more than half of them are dated 1987-1990? Bearcat (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Does it have as much coverage as we would like, no, but it most certainly has enough to pass WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG, which is all that matters here. Bearcat (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Cunard's sources above. Also 3 seasons on a national network - common sense says this shouldn't have been nominated without a lot more research. Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I still remain unconvinced that any of that is WP:SIGCOV. Can you explain to me how half a sentence is significant? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first article alone (Toronto Star 1988) is almost entirely about the show, mentioning it eight times. Why would you claim it's half a sentence. With that kind of blatantly false claim, I'm not even going to waste my time checking any more references. It's a well known show that everyone in the country has heard of. This nomination is a disgrace, and making blatant false claims is surely a bannable offence. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you not see the part where I said "Source 2 just name-drops the show in one sentence"? That's an article on Deal or No Deal that dedicates less than a sentence to Bumper Stumpers. Don't twist my words. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I didn't see that - you should have mentioned it in response to my comment. Though surely it's moot given how good the Toronto Star one is. I struggle to understand how the largest circulating English-language paper in the nation is "local interest" on a program aired for years nationally on one of the big-three networks. I'm not sure, User:TenPoundHammer why you haven't withdrawn this. Nfitz (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bumper Stumpers received significant coverage in a 1988 article in the Toronto Star and a 2000 article in Lambda so passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I provided the other sources in the "Less significant coverage" section to show the additional less significant coverage Bumper Stumpers had received as they contribute to notability (but do not establish notability as they are not significant coverage) in showing the attention the show has received. I included the sources in the "Less significant coverage" section also so they can be used to verify additional material that can be added to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are student newspapers reliable sources, though? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As all the information in that student newspaper matches what other reliable sources have said, then yes. But we don't need that ... I've added five further sources to the article verifying the same facts; all are brief, but the sources include the New York Daily News, Ottawa Citizen, USA Today, and Toronto Star. I focused my search for sources from before the program was first broadcast; presumably there are more during the years it was on the air. One thing I wasn't able to confirm was the number of episodes. Several sources said the initial sale was 130 episodes - but given it aired for 3 years (and then a decade of repeats), was there additional orders? Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears clear that newly-added sources help establish that Geick now meeets the GNG. Star Mississippi 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Geick[edit]

Dylan Geick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been deleted twice before. The references added since then don't change much. Still does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. Still does not meet WP:GNG. agtx 02:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Poetry, Wrestling, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Geick meets WP:SIGCOV per 2021 in VMan, 2019 in Outsports, 2018 in The New York Times, 2018 and 2017 in Lake County News-Sun, 2017 in ChicagoPride.com. This isn't routine college game statistics as stated in WP:NCOLLATH. Local coverage shouldn't be discounted (WP:ITSLOCAL). Perhaps one day, coming out won't be newsworthy, but in this instance, the coverage is there. TJMSmith (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with TJMSmith's sources enough to pass GNG. I added another sigcov source to the article (this one). I haven't stopped looking but I didn't want to forget to !vote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just added a 2017 Chicago Tribune SIGCOV source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This source was discussed specifically at the last AfD, where it was explained that this is local WP:YOUNGATH type coverage not actually from the Tribune. agtx 16:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sportsfan 1234, multiple sources in the article and linked here are reliable, secondary, independent, and significant in their coverage of Geick. On what grounds do you see a GNG failure? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is discussed at length in the second AfD. It's the same sources, and the same reasons apply. agtx 16:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Replying to your comment just above and the one timestamped 16:13: the 2018 Tribune/News-Sun piece was mentioned at the last AfD, but the 2017 one is new. The analysis applied seems to be an NCOLLATH one, but GNG does not have a "national media" requirement and the analysis isn't simply transferable to a different guideline. Though syndicated from the News-Sun, the 2017 piece was published in the Tribune. The Daily Herald piece and VMan feature weren't discussed in the last AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another source that wasn't discussed last time is the 2021 paper in the Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education that uses Geick as one of its three case studies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to revisit the source analysis please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: here's a source analysis table (just below, collapsed). I didn't include all the sources in the article or mentioned here. Some of these sources were discussed in the last AfD, but most commenters were analyzing them through the lens of NCOLLATH. There's no need for SNG analysis here, as GNG is met. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Oustports (2017)				✔ Yes
Chicago Tribune (2017)		syndicated content from the News-Sun, also reliable. Was definitely published in the Tribune		✔ Yes
Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, 2017)				✔ Yes
Outsports (2019)			Not exclusively about Geick; about 380 words of coverage, hitting the major beats of a couple years of his life, and additional 400 directly quoting him on his life and NCAA policy	✔ Yes
Lake County News-Sun (2018)		now hosted on the Tribune's site but no evidence it was published in the paper; News-Sun is plenty reliable on its own		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to CGTN (TV channel)#CGTN Europe. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 22:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CGTN Europe[edit]

CGTN Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially a poor copy-and-paste of parts from China Global Television Network and is not even about GCTN Europe per se. Everything here is already covered in the main CGTN article. Amigao (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, and China. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to CGTN (TV channel)#CGTN Europe (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Retaining the history will allow editors to reuse the content and sources for other articles like CGTN (TV channel)#CGTN Europe and China Global Television Network. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes good sense. - Amigao (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to CGTN (TV channel)#CGTN Europe, as per Cunad and the policy WP:ATD-R. Cirton (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to CGTN (TV channel)#CGTN Europe.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accurin[edit]

Accurin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional spam. Fails GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge any useful pieces to Nanomedicine or other related pages) Yes, this is a promotional mess. Some of the claims do not correspond to the references cited, and there are much better places for this information (e.g., Nanomedicine). "Accurin" is a poor place to file information that people would want to access. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix/improve Article may now contain some advert like wording, eg the section on the promoting company, but that can be fixed without deleting the article which has been around for 7 years before a flurry of large edits this year. (It seems I made the original stub). They could be mentioned in nanomedicine, but like all the other applications mentioned that is just a summary referring to a separate article page. We can't dump everything about 1000 different nanomedicines in that one article. Since accurins have reached clinical trials they seem notable, even if they subsequently fail to be approved. - Rod57 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How many therapeutics make it to CT before being rejected? Where is the coverage about accurin in media? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How does making it to clinical trials mean a drug is notable? Can you explain? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge Fully agree Rod57, anything useful and backed by proper sourcing is better served at nanomedicine. Whether anything is usable will require someone with relevant experience. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nanomedicine is not in good shape and can be expanded with details about "Accurin". This article is just promotional and lacks enough peer-reviewed studies. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure if this material should be in Wikipedia anywhere or not, but it probably shouldn't be here. Accurin isn't used as a term in the scientific literature; it's a trademark - effectively, branding - for one particular company's products. The general idea of layered nanoparticles to modulate drug delivery isn't unique to this family of products. The company itself went bankrupt in 2015, and its remains were bought up by Pfizer in 2016. It looks like a couple of their products made it into early-stage human trials, but nothing got as far as Phase 3. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional, inadequately sourced for a medical topic, and badly written to an extent that the prose isn't worth salvaging by a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is wide agreement that WP:BLP1E applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Karn[edit]

Mo Karn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E; not known beyond local coverage for this FOIA incident. Only additional hits in ProQuest were for passing mentions related to local activism. czar 18:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. czar 18:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to WP:BLP1E, an article on a BLP can be deleted if If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, if If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and if If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. This person meets all three criteria for deletion. This person is only covered in local news sources in the context of a single event, the FOIA incident. This person is likely to go back to being low-profile soon. Finally, the event itself is not significant, as it is only covered in local news sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:BLP1E. You find more hits for "Mo Karnage" than "Mo Karn", but they're the aforementioned local activism mentions and a handful of author credits that don't get to WP:NAUTHOR either. (nb: they're already "back to being low profile" - the event was 10 years ago.) -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:BLP1E. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage except for the FOIA incident. RicDod (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on additional 2017 article in Richmond Times–Dispatch highlighting later activities. The FOIA incident is the dominant incident for notability, but they pop up in a pre-FOIA article in the Times–Dispatch about Food Not Bombs and afterwards with the 2017 profile. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned that latter coverage. It's local and in passing. czar 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's local in that it's limited to the main newspaper of the fourth largest city in Virginia. It's also a full profile; they are the focus of the entire article, which doesn't seem to be a passing reference to me nor does it seem to meet the WP:LPI definition. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:BLP1E, per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all coverage is hyper-local in nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus emerging from the discussion is that the sources found do rise to the level of significant coverage of the subject. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Shendi[edit]

Omar Shendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep from ref 2, in his playing career he was part of the league winning team for eleven different seasons, before coaching the side he played for, with a coaching career in Saudi Arabia and another one in Kuwait. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What does this guy have to do with cricket? Seems to be an Egyptian footballer and they don't play cricket in Egypt! StickyWicket (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's Pharaoh-nuff... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lugnuts. Had such a prominent career that I am confident significant coverage exists - the fact we cannot seem to find it (because it is likely offline and in Arabic) should not impact. GiantSnowman 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching Al-Ahram, I was able to find numerous references to his lengthy career, as well as an obituary on April 25, 1992 (page 12). I can't link because the service is subscription only, but I have a copy of the obituary (in Arabic) if anyone is interested in verifying. Unfortunately, Arabic sources tend to disappear from the internet rather quickly (see WP:BIAS), but I did find at least one archived. The title of that translates to "Omar Shendi, the first wizard of the of the Zamalek Club". Canadian Paul 02:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. The source provided by Canadian Paul does not appear to be significant or reliable; it's home page described it as "sports from the perspective of the zamalek fan". BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You have !voted twice. Please strike the !vote on this comment. Canadian Paul 01:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Canadian Paul: Apologies, I didn't notice. Please ping me next time though, as I don't watchlist every AFD I participate in. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG and BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:SPORTCRIT with the link that Canadian Paul. Also lots of mention in books about Egyptian football. Examples one, two, three. I am concerned about these types of nomination of century-old players, who just looking at their accomplishments are undoubtedly going to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Paul's source appears to be a fan site, and there's no reason to believe any of those books contain significant coverage of the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog - not the best ... but who blogs about non-notable 100-year old players? I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Gibbs[edit]

Clifford Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Canterbury representative cricketers per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep since the expansion that's been done, the location of additional sources, and the prospect of further sourcing being available too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the excellent nature of Papers Past, there's a reasonable chance that sources can be found for New Zealanders. I'll check later and see what I can find - per Alfred Hollings which was recently sent to AfD. In the interim, there is an obvious ATD here so I can't see anything worse than the redirect that Lugnuts suggests. It may also be pertinent to point out that the recent RfC proposal which was accepted noted that there should be some form of grandfathering in order to avoid a mass of deletion discussions. Although this case would always have been an edge case anyway, it's probably significant to point at that element of the RfC at this point given the number of recent AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A preliminary search for "C. S. Gibbs" cricket gives 172 hits. Just his name suggests he may have also been a golfer. No idea what I'll find when I delve into it, but it'll take a few days to do so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fwiw looks like at times he's being referred to as S Gibbs and I've found two mentions of Gibb rather than Gibbs so far. There are bits and pieces coming out - quotes that are usable for sure - but I probably won't be able to blitz this until Tuesday at the earliest, and it may be that work takes over and I really can't get to it. There's stuff there, but I'm not entirely sure how strong it'll be. Some patience may be in order here please. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blue Square Thing: - thank you (again) for your help here. Did you manage to locate anything else? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lugnuts: There's bits and pieces, but it's not as strong - as NealeWellington suggests below. I've been ridiculously busy all week and have another one of those weeks to come, so I really don't know if I'll be able to get very much more done on it; it's possible, but... Paora's additions are similar to the sorts of things I'm finding, so this remains a bit marginal - of course, they may find a bunch more or have the time to do the work that I'm struggling to do. He played in what was described as a "young" Wellington team in the wooden spoon match in 29/30, opening the bowling for example, but it's a tricky search as there's at least one other Gibbs also playing cricket at a similar time! So overall I'm not sure. It might make a weak keep, but it's not as strong as Priest or Hollings which were clear cut in my view. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem - really appreciate you taking time to look into this. Don't worry about things on here over real life stuff. Worst case is it's redirected and the possibility of restoring it at some point in the future. Thanks again! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At this stage I'm Redirect to List of Canterbury representative cricketers as a simple search isn't showing much to suggest a GNG pass, but I'll wait to see what BST can find and update my vote if sourcing is found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment taken an fairly in depth look through papers past and can find nothing to improve the article. He appears to have primarily played senior club cricket, was an auctioneer by trade, and played golf in later years. NealeWellington (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: He is referred to as Cliff Gibbs in the history of the Burnside West Chistchurch University Cricket Club by Brian Adams. Paora (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Paora - tried that as well with only 8 hits in Papers Past and nothing of note. NealeWellington (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to Redirect to List of Canterbury representative cricketers, as the article has been improved, but not enough to meet GNG. I think the article history is worth preserving though. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm happy with the expansion. StickyWicket (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Now I'm at keep given the expansion that Paora's added - and I would think there might be more to come. There's enough here to suggest he has notability. Excellent work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following latest additions demonstrating notability and significant coverage. Paora (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Update vote to KEEP per the excellent work of Paora, there's enough here for a GNG pass now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after great work from BST and Paora the subject now meets WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 03:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While there was an early slate of delete !votes, none returned to clarify whether those still held true after the sources were identified, and those sources countered those that simply said they didn't meet GNG Star Mississippi 16:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guchi (musician)[edit]

Guchi (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional paid job on a non notable WP:TOOSOON Nigerian musician who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and do not meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. I’m an expert on Nigerian sources and I can expressly state that sourcing is absent in this article. Furthermore the article creator has been indicted in deliberately adding falsehood in their articles which was first spotted by Praxidicae & Timtrent. Please see AFD & this AFD. They are intentionally adding falsehood in their articles perhaps hoping it gets undetected. Celestina007 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Nigeria, and United States of America. Celestina007 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Absolutely no notability, except, presumably, to their friends. Nominees are not winners. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my !vote entirely. I will analyse further sources before reaching a further conclusion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I believe in Celestina007’s judgement on sources but these lined up sources tends to change my mind. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Those sources "you all lined up" are all press releases, which is churnslism, can you show any sources that satisfy RS? That is, that discusses the subject in in-depth significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: When I see musicians getting best new artist nomination less than 12 months ago, it is usually a case of WP:TOOSOON. Although neutral, but tending towards delete than a keep. I can expatiate further if need be. HandsomeBoy (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: Even though it is probably WP:TOOSOON, I have to say that nomination is one of the WP:NMUSICIAN aspects, as it states in point 8 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles that it needs to have won or been nominated to a major award. I am not familiar enough to the awards scene in Nigeria as to say if those listed are the major awards or not. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Note to the closing admin that no editor here has provided any reliable sources, what has been provided are press releases and mere mentions and nothing in-depth that discusses the subject of the article in significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero GNG type sources and does not meet SNG criteria. As a result near-zero content. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, as others have said. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC - before this article was nominated for deletion, a variety of sources were removed from the article [2], [3], including sources listed at the Wikiproject Africa Sources List, e.g.:

• "NDLEA unveils Guchi as anti-drug ambassador". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
• "Many Nigerian pop stars are yet to find their sounds — Guchi". Vanguard Newspaper. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
• "My song preaches true and genuine love –Guchi". The Punch Newspaper. Retrieved 4 May 2019.
• "GUCHI: Abuja showed me love but Lagos is better". The Nation Newspaper. Retrieved 20 April 2019.
• "Why I'm still single –Gucci, singer". The Sun Newspaper. Retrieved 10 November 2019.

The Google search pointed to by Reading Beans shows further coverage from sources listed at WP:AFSL and WP:NGRS, e.g.

• Guchi, Afropop singer seals ambassadorial deal with NDLEA (Vanguard, 2020)
• Guchi blazes with ‘No Be Jazzy’ (Vanguard, 2019)
• Guchi: Africa's breakout star of the post-pandemic era (Pulse, 2021)
• #Shedibalala challenge, Guchi, others blow up TikTok (PM News, 2021)
• Here are the top 10 Nigerian artists to watch in 2022 (Pulse, 2022)

Beccaynr (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep following the work above to identify sources by Beccaynr and analysys of those sources I find her just to be the right side of the borderline. The references are "just strong enough" so better references will be more useful. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Beccaynr's rationale, and sources. I am more concerned about Celestina's removal of content, and sources here. They removed entire section of "early life" (RS sourced), with edit summary "promotional". There were two promotional sentences, no need to remove entire section. They also removed some other sourced content with edit summary "false", thats unacceptable behaviour. The diffs to these edits have provided above by Beccaynr. Celestina also removed the section "Events performed" with summary "promotional to". This is a very common section for articles of musician. It was unsourced, but not promotional. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  update: I was on mobile when I posted my previous comment. In this edit, they removed the entire section of "early life" which was sourced, with edit summary "promotional material". There were two-three semi-promotional sentences, which should have been removed. Removing entire section was not called for. In this edit they removed the section "Events permormed" with summary "promotional to". However, the most concerning removal is this one, where they removed In 2020, she [Guchi] was granted as an ambassadorship for the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). A simple search "guchi anti drug ambassador" gives a lot of sources corroborating the claim. I am not sure why Celestina007 removed it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have just edited the article based on a re-examination of the version before the nominator's removals, adding material from existing sources and from one of the sources listed above by Beccaynr, Pulse (which supported some unsourced statements and enabled me to bring the account of her career up to date as of November 2021; the prose was otherwise stuck in early 2019. I did find unreferenced material that I had to remove, including her middle name and birthdate, and I threw out both articles in The Sun Nigeria, which appears to be affiliated with the British tabloid and in my judgement is therefore not an acceptable source—but everything was citable from other sources. The article was not very promotional in style, and the amplitude of coverage in the Nigerian press, its continuing for years after her debut song, and her getting a Top 10 Billboard chart position in my view are sufficient indications of notability. I restored the notability tag since the article is at AfD, but it's traditional to remove that when an article is kept. Many thanks to Beccaynr for lining up sources; I may come back to add more. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Beccaynr. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the WP:BEFORE work done by User:Beccaynr. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 16:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Chapian[edit]

Marie Chapian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. Been on the cat:nn list for 10 years+. BLP that has never been referenced. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did some digging around and learned that she publishes as Marie Chapian, Marie Jordan, and Maria Giordano. [4] The later two names are common enough that sourcing is a challenge. I am unsure about notability as a number of books are co-authored with her as second author and the newspaper articles focus on the lead author (e.g., Cathleen Mae Webb,Gary Dotson,Gavin MacLeod. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I feel she meets WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of her books; the reviews are now in the article. I did reduce the long list of publications to focus on those that have received attention from others. However, while her work has been reviewed in multiple publications, I find little about Chapian/Giordano/Jordan herself. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of references to multiple reviews of her books including the New York Times, Star Tribune, Publishers Weekly and others so that WP:NAUTHOR criteria 4 (c) is passed, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep My analysis is the same as User:DaffodilOcean's - there's not much to form an article here, it's entirely focussed on her writing, which doesn't get a lot of attention, but I think it is enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR CT55555 (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that it seems to have been improved. I think it is just enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are questions about sourcing, which may take more time. But with no one arguing for deletion, this discussion does not need to continue. Star Mississippi 16:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Rubinstein[edit]

José Rubinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Chess player article been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years. Unable to locate coverage. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage of him is likely available in Argentine print media of the 1960s,especially from the Tucumán area. A few such local news reports are reproduced by the Ajedrez historico site and cited in the article. See e.g., this compilation of the extensive coverage in local media sources of his 100% score at the 1961 Tucumán provincial championship. The books on the 1961 national championship and Mar del Plata 1962 tournaments may also have significant coverage. For the last 22 years, the Villa Martelli chess club has organized an annual tournament in his memory, which also speaks to the subject's notability. Cobblet (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That all seems to be primary sources at the moment. Where is the secondary sources. There is not one thing I can grasp that would validate the article. scope_creep^Talk 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It would appear neither you nor I have access to a library in Argentina. I do not see the point in asking for coverage in secondary sources when we cannot access said secondary sources. Based on the sampling of coverage in primary sources we can see, the popularity of chess in Argentina (especially during the relevant time period), and the fact that modern-day events continue to be held in honour of this person, I'd say it's likely that notability could be established in such secondary sources if we knew what they were and could access them. Cobblet (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cobblet: None of that addresses the problem. Your keep doesn't count for much, as you have not proven your argument per WP:V. The form at Afd is put at least three references that are secondary to prove the individual is notable. The references you have put are either primary or Non-RS.

  • The first ref you put is a blog. It is WP:SPS source and is Non-RS.
  • The second ref you put in an auction site. It is unreliable and Non-RS.
  • The third ref you put up is an event listing. It is unreliable and Non-RS.

  The article refs:

  • It is wikipedia, and illegal link and Non-RS.
  • The 2nd is malware link, or drive-by malware. It is Non-RS.
  • The 3rd article is ref is machine generate listing with no context. He came in 10th in 1962, which makes him mediocre and is unreliable source. Making it Non-RS

  They are junk refs. The article has been on the cat:nn with no sources for more than 10 years. That is no coverage otherwise it would already be in the article. scope_creep^Talk 19:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The first ref I linked to is a blog post, yes, but one compiling several contemporaneous news reports of a tournament José Rubinstein won. I do not see any of the concerns with this source that would make WP:SPS relevant, since I see no reason why we should not trust the veracity of the quoted news reports. The other two auction sites I linked to demonstrate the existence of books documenting major tournaments José Rubinstein participated in. You have not given any reason why said books would be unreliable. Your comments regarding the references in the article make even less sense, but that's a moot point, since none of them would constitute significant coverage of the subject, so I will not discuss them further with you. Cobblet (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found a better reference for his finish in the 1961 Argentine championship. I found a cross table of the Mar del Plata 1962 tournament in Chess Review, July 1962 (won by Polugaevsky, Robert Byrne got a GM norm), but Rubinstein wasn't in it; the KIM tournament (what does that stand for?) and the Latino-Americano tournament in the same year in the same city were not mentioned in Chess Life or Chess Review in the United States. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That link you put in non-rs as its unreliable. It is worse than the last one. It is more of the same. Very poor or non-existant references. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The link cites the October 1961 Revista Ajedrez, a well-respected and long-running Argentinian magazine. You have provided no reason to doubt the correctness of the citation or the crosstable itself. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed this. This website gives credit to Revista Ajedrez. It would be possible for me to follow through with this, by finding a copy of Revista Ajedrez, looking it over, and citing it instead of citing the website. The drawback of this would be that for both me and (most of) our readers, the website is much easier to access than the 1961 print magazine. I don't know the best resolution of this dilemma. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no dilemma. Indeed it would be ideal to track down the original magazine and give a full citation with page number from it. But even if we were to do that, it would still make sense to also cite the website, for precisely the accessibility reasons you state. We give multiple citations for a single fact all the time. Cobblet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  KIM is short for Kimberley, a chess club that may have been related to or affiliated with the sports club Kimberley de Mar del Plata. Cobblet (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the editorial control section on the site? It is listing of information, making it a blog and its WP:SPS source. It says at the bottom of the wordpress page. It is non-RS. I have a sneaking feeling you folk that write these Chess don't really know consistutes a real secondary sources per WP:SECONARY. I understand that chess is a bit of a closed world. I was in the primary school, high school and university chess teams, so I've some understanding of it, but this is an encyclopeadia and the notability guidelines state for a BLP, there must be secondary sources to validate the article. So far it fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The blog is quoting a well-respected chess magazine which is a secondary source for the player's tournament result. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid, and comment on content, not on the contributors. Cobblet (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More "comment", rather than "keep" or "delete", because I have questions to which I don't know the answers.

I have added a source for Mar del Plata KIM 1962, which is the same source we are using in Hector Rossetto. However, 365Chess is not a reliable source. I have found errors in 365Chess tournament reports, and I don't know of a way to get them corrected. So this is not a good situation.

I have found references to the victory in a Fischer simul in chessgames.com and in YouTube. But these are not reliable sources either. Beating Fischer in a simul is not the kind of thing that instantly confers notability, so I wonder what the big deal is, or was. Perhaps part of the notability arose from the fact that a player strong enough to compete in the national championship condescended to be one of the "customers" of the simul.

Ideally, for coverage of his 5th place in the Argentine championship, one would like to see more than just a crosstable. But finding this will probably involve looking through a lot of Spanish-language material, and since this is English Wikipedia, it might not happen right away. WP:N does not say that notability is a language-specific construct, but this kind of situation makes me feel like it is. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A news report would be ideal. Translate news or the another suitable term into spanish and then search on that term. DeepL can be used to do the translation. Currently the article has no secondary sources. They are very poor profile and machine generated data pages, references and a 404. That are junk. The blog is just that. The best that can be done for this is Draftify it, became at it doesn't meet WP:V to meet WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. When a do a WP:BEFORE. There is nothing there. scope_creep^Talk 17:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source giving the crosstable for Mar del Plata 1962, and a source for the win in the Fischer simul. The second source is unambiguously a secondary source. Cobblet (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet: There is a script which shows you what references are unreliable. Its worth getting. References 2,3,4,5,6, 8 are unreliable and must come out. Once you get the script you will see it. It is used by the afc/npp folk, articles reviews to reviews references. It is very helpful. scope_creep^Talk 05:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of a source can only be determined by competent editors examining the source, not by any automated script. A source can be self-published and yet still be reliable: there is no blanket rule against using self-published sources in an article that is not a BLP. As I have already explained to you multiple times, the blog you take issue with is directly reproducing reliable, non-self-published sources, such as articles from La Gaceta. And we are citing the blog not for any sort of analysis or synthetic claim, but only for specific facts regarding Jose Rubinstein's tournament results that are not open to interpretation. Moreover, said facts are corroborated by reliable secondary sources where those are available (e.g., Di Felice's Chess Results, a standard reference for chess historians which I have now also cited), which speaks to the blog's reliability. Therefore the use of this blog for this narrow purpose is justified, and allows people who don't have access to Di Felice to independently verify the claims made in the article. Again, please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, particularly the section "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid." Cobblet (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruce leverett: I've removed the 365Chess source and cited di Felice instead for the Kimberley club tournament, as well as the blog. Cobblet (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken them out. They are unreliable. I review article as part of AFC/NPP. All the script is formalise those rules. Di Felice's Chess Results is an not a reliable source. Find something better. It is primary as well. I'm not seeing any attempt to try and find better sources. scope_creep^Talk 07:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited a single scrap of policy or guideline that supports your contention that this blog cannot be used. Have you read Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works yet? Calling Di Felice a primary source is absurd and suggests you have no concept what a primary source is. How was Di Felice close to or directly involved with chess tournaments that happened in Argentina 60 years ago? Why do you think Di Felice is unreliable? Cobblet (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the wrong one, didn't I. Ref 2,3,4,5 and 7 and 8 are unreliable. I took them out. That is probably sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO now. scope_creep^Talk 07:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not explained what makes you think the Ajedrez historico blog is unreliable. No policy on Wikipedia states that SPSs are inherently unreliable and cannot be used under any circumstance. The reasons why the blog is cited have been laid out above, and you have not responded to them at all. Carrying out an edit war when a discussion is taking place is unacceptable behaviour. Using an automated script is not a substitute for critically evaluating a source. Cobblet (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found several more reliable sources that discuss Jose Rubinstein (in Spanish). I am not sure the proper etiquette to share them to add to the discussion. Wether to share them here, or to contribute to the article. There are many articles about tournaments in his honor organized by one of Argentina´s biggest chess clubs, as well as an article from La Gaceta de Tucumán, the biggest newspaper of the area, discussing the simul against Bobby Fischer. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Cobblet. The RS that prove his notability are there. Ok that in the WP article, a number of citations are via a blog that scanned them, but this doesn't invalidate them. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Samuels[edit]

Kevin Samuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a non notable YouTuber with little to no reliable sources, all while written in the POV of a fan. Cheers. WimePocy 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. Cheers. WimePocy 15:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak keep Subject wasn't notable enough to have an article (no doubt created by a fan) while he was alive and his death doesn't magically change that. Very little legitimate third-party coverage outside of the few sources in the article, some of which were removed for being deprecated. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical that he is notable enough, but deletion is not a way to do it. MarioJump83! 02:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote as seen above. I guess he does pass notability guidelines, but the article itself was fan-created and needs work to sound neutral in tone. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks like many of the non-notable/deprecated sources have been removed. Also found a New York Times obit which helps cover some of the claims. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Probably the article should be up for improvement, but not deletion. This person was notable enough, and proof of that is that his death became a worldwide trending topic, as well as coverage on sites such as New York Times, NBC, and more. It should be probably semiprotected because it can be either troll edited or fan edited. Pazguillermo (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable subject with reliable sources to support notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Weak keep I found this article from ITN, and in my opinion the subject isn't really that notable. But I believe that this can be at least be improved since there are some reliable sources that cover the subject. Thus I believe that draftification is the best course of action, for now. MarioJump83! 21:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not remotely a fan of Kevin Samuels and yet I was disappointed to learn that Wikipedia didn't even have an article for him until rumors of his death started circulating. During his life, Samuels garnered a modicum of significant coverage (e.g. Essence, Yahoo News, Parle), but he has now far surpassed the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:BASIC with "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" including the New York Times, NBC News, The Root, Complex, The Daily Beast, and NPR. I think as Wikipedians we have a healthy skepticism about so-called "influencers", but let us not be so jaded as to not recognize that Samuels easily meets our notability requirements. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My thoughts exactly, well put! I was also surprised to see that Kevin Samuel did not have an article created until recently. Seems to be the case for many such controversial black "influencers", such as Dr. Umar Johnson.

  While they might only be online personalities/influencers, I believe many of these people are driving cultural forces in the black community. Very influential, and as you've pointed out, the ample coverage in various reliable sources throughout the years helps Samuels fulfill Wikipedia's standards for notability. Mooonswimmer 14:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mooonswimmer so you're saying we should keep the article in order to fulfill WP's standards for notability for the black community? Seems like WP:RGW, if you ask me. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm saying we should keep the article because there's enough press coverage to fulfill WP:GNG. Also, we're supposed to assess things on a case per case basis. It's easy to dismiss these types, but they are not your average teenage Tiktok influencers. These are the black counterparts to all the "notable" alt-right personalities and conspiracy theorists who are also not as well known to more traditional institutions of public intellectualism and political activism, but have a huge hold over their commmunities.

  Not quite sure how you made the WP:RGW connection. Mooonswimmer 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's really not, we can ignore race and still see that Samuels has an impact on a community. It's not pandering just because they happen to be black. June Parker (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per gobonobo Mooonswimmer 14:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reliable sources referenced by other editors are all referencing his untimely death. The subject was not notable enough to have an article while alive, and likely would not have been covered by organizations like the New York Times had he not died prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NBA Fan44 (talk • contribs)
• Keep ... very clearly meets notability guidelines, with several articles on several credible sources. Acekard, 17:55 May 8 2022
• Weak keep. Before his death, he was covered by BET [5], Newsweek [6], Complex [7], and HipHopDX [8]. While there just barely wasn't enough proof of his notability at the time, the heavy coverage of his death by multiple, multiple major media outlets speaks to how polarizing, controversial, and ultimately popular his platform had become by then. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + Comment I find it a bit odd how this article talks broadly about him being a "Misogynist" when most of his misogyny was directed towards black women, but being phrased in such a way to imply he had it out for white people. This page has sources that dub him as actively Misogynoir and I feel like that term would make the article more consistent. June Parker (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep the content is clear. Where, and under what name, is an editorial conversation with third opinion, if necessary to mediate. Star Mississippi 16:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Oricum[edit]

Siege of Oricum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a siege (creator himself couldn't find any evidence that this is one) or notable event. Was deprodded on a promise of good sources and content (why this couldn't be added anywhere else other than an article about a spurious event is beyond me), but the only reliable source added doesn't give any details, and the others are unreliable and primary (those don't add significant details either). This is just a routine and ordinary surrender among many others that took place during the period in question, and there is no reason to have an article about it. Avilich (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the editor who spent time remedying the nominator's failure to do WP:BEFORE yet again. One would think that the advance of an army on a city and its subsequent surrender during one of the most important wars in antiquity would qualify as "notable". Certainly it was notable enough for Appian to discuss it, notable enough to be discussed in classical encyclopedias, and if Wikipedia doesn't have room for it, I don't know why. The nominator doesn't think anything written in antiquity is a reliable source, which is absurd; clearly WP:PRIMARY has not been read and understood. And it's not clear which of the two modern sources he considers unreliable, but he's wrong either way, as both are perfectly reliable for their contents. Additionally, WP:BEFORE expects editors to look for sources before nominating articles for deletion based on inadequate sourcing; once again that was not done, since reliable sources could have been located with even the most cursory of searches—and the nominator is too well-acquainted with the sources available to have been unaware of that; he simply chose to disregard WP:BEFORE, leaving it to other editors to do what he was supposed to do in the first place. The argument about the event not being a "siege" is not relevant to AFD; it's an argument about the best title for the article. I suppose the original author couldn't think of a better description; maybe "Surrender of Oricum" would be more fitting, and I used it in the lead when rewriting the article. But that's not relevant to this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources don't confer notability, notability is not inherited, content forking is a reason for deletion, and a single-sentence mention of a WP:ROUTINE event in a source from 2 centuries ago (the one you added) is not significant coverage. You know all of this already. Avilich (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to synthesize unrelated policies and guidelines to sound like something else. The first question is whether the topic is notable, not whether "primary sources confer notability", which is not under discussion. But as we seem to be going down that rabbit hole anyway, if you were at all familiar with WP:PRIMARY, you would be aware that 1) primary sources are not excluded from use in Wikipedia, provided they are used appropriately; 2) Appian is not a primary source, as neither he nor anyone he knew was either a participant or a witness to any of the events described. His history is by definition a secondary source independent of Caesar.

Notability not being inherited has nothing to do with this article; there is no claim that "everything that Caesar did" is notable, but the capture of a city by a daring night march and the unwillingness of its inhabitants to resist the authority of a Roman consul at the head of an army is notable, and certainly does not become non-notable because the consul was Caesar. You may also have missed this warning at the beginning of WP:NOTINHERITED: "Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy. Nor does it apply to speedy deletion or proposed deletion, as they are not deletion discussions. It only applies to arguments to avoid at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." [emphasis supplied]

This is not a discussion of content forking. That would be a valid matter to raise in a merger discussion, but this is a deletion discussion. The article has been nominated for deletion, which means that all of the content and its sources would be deleted from the encyclopedia, not merged into another article where they might be covered instead. Your argument is that the subject is not notable, that it is "routine" and not deserving of being discussed anywhere—so describing it as a content fork is a complete non-sequitur.

Your blatant misuse of WP:ROUTINE should be obvious to anyone who reads the guideline, but to save others searching for it, here it is in its entirety:

Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine.[4] Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories).

The capture of a strategically-important city by Caesar during the Civil War—however quickly or bloodlessly—is not "routine" in the sense that a wedding announcement, sports score, crime log, or bear-in-a-tree is "routine", and no reasonable person could possibly think that WP:ROUTINE is describing such events (although according to your argument, the fact that the city was captured by Caesar during the Civil War makes it less notable than if it had been captured by an obscure person, with no relation to other events).

Wikipedia doesn't have an expiration date for sources—a particularly important thing to remember in the field of classics, where much of the best scholarship occurred between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries. There needs to be a better reason for excluding an apparently reliable source than the date of first publication—and it's hard to see what reason there could possibly be to object to the account in "the source that must not be named". Is it supposed to be biased or confused in some manner, or proven incorrect by subsequent discoveries? If not, then there is no argument for excluding it.

You've adopted an interesting strategy: come up with enough arguments to eliminate this source and that source, and then you can claim that there isn't significant coverage because you've eliminated all but one or two sources. "This source doesn't count because it's primary. This source doesn't count because it's Roman. This source doesn't count because it's old. This source doesn't count because it's a passing mention. This source doesn't count because it's a bear-in-a-tree. Only one source remains, so there's no significant coverage." I wish I could treat this line of attack with dignity. No, I don't. It's a mess of outcome-driven arguments with little or no merit. Someone thought this article shouldn't be deleted, so now it's imperative to attack it with every weapon in the arsenal to try to get it deleted—just throw everything against the wall and see if anything sticks.

I'll ignore the "you know all of this already" because it's a transparent retort to my claim that you were well aware of where to find reliable sources on this topic when you proposed deleting the article and then when you started an AFD, without bothering to look for any. Instead you based your argument entirely on the state of the sourcing already in the article, in direct contravention of WP:BEFORE. But in either case, the burden is on the nominator to make a good-faith effort to determine whether there are (or are likely to be) reliable sources to support an article that lacks sufficient sources, and in each case you have avoided that and demanded that unless other editors find and insert them, the article must be deleted (of course, when reliable sources were inserted, you then argued that all but one of them was unreliable, and therefore the article should be deleted because it has only one source, which means that there is no significant coverage—a mind-boggling feat of reasoning), and that the topic isn't notable and therefore ought to be deleted even if there are reliable sources, which supposedly there aren't.

But to return to WP:BEFORE, if you feel that the sources in an article are inadequate, then find more. If you think they're too old or outdated, find newer or better ones to supplement or replace them. Don't just assert that because the existing sources are no good, no further effort need be expended on discussing or improving the article—don't try to shift the burden to other editors to do what you should have done in the first place, and then do your utmost to dismiss their work as irrelevant when they take the time and effort to improve the article. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before is automatically met if the nominator has an idea of the external sourcing available. In this case, the original sources only say that 'person A immediately surrendered this city to person B', and, for this reason, no secondary source is ever going to have significant coverage of the topic. The mere fact of one town surrendering, among a dozen others, is not by itself notable, and the fact should instead be mentioned as part of some other notable topic. If you had noticed that the surrendering governor's article already indeed mentions the fall of Oricum, you might've improved that one instead and saved us both some time. In fact I would do that straight away if I were you; I won't be able to 'dismiss' your work as irrelevant if you do so because there are no grounds to delete that article. The only thing that matters here is that there is not enough information about this ordinary town surrender that it needs its own page: it's a content fork that adds nothing useful. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This idea that the best scholarship occurred between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries seems little more than a dismissal of the last hundred years of scholarship. Views have changed substantially over that time.

The racially-motivated ideas for the origins of the plebs in Niebuhr (along with his idea that ballads transmitted Rome's early history) are no longer accepted. Cornell, Beginnings of Rome (1995) pp 12, 116, 242. Mommsen's History is now recognised as highly polemical: eg Rebenich, "Theodor Mommsen's History of Rome and it's political and intellectual context" in Arena, Prag (eds) Companion to the political culture of the Roman republic (2022). Mommsen's conception of a highly legalistic republic also are rejected in favour of flexible theories of republican practice. The most annoying are the primary source claims that the Gracchi's efforts were always in vain when we keep finding boundary stone after boundary stone with the agrarian commission's names on it. See eg Roselaar, Public land (2010).

Sure, there is no "expiry date". There is also no reason these days to be going first to long-aged material which is known to be relatively uncritical when we have access to the latest edition of the entire Oxford Classical Dictionary in the Wikipedia Library. We can even follow bibliographies in the OCD relatively easily because we have access to lots of recent books through Wiley, Oxford Scholarship, and DeGruyter (also on Wikipedia Library). We should prefer newer sources not because of some perverse fetish, but because we can do it easily and without difficulty and without falling into their pitfalls. Ifly6 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonsensical argument. We do not stop using or citing authorities because the views that they held on topics other than what they are being cited for are outdated or even offensive to modern sensibilities. The examples provided are completely irrelevant to this discussion; the article does not cite Niebuhr or Mommsen, but if it did cite them for simple factual statements that are nowhere disputed and for which there is no evidence of obsolescence, then there would be no legitimate reason to excise those citations; in fact it would be extremely bad scholarship to disregard the opinions of experts merely because their opinions on unrelated matters are obsolete. This article does not discuss, nor touch upon in any way, racial attitudes of the 19th (or 20th, or 21st) century, or abstract concepts of legal formalism.

Nobody here contends that anything in the article—or in any of the sources cited—is inaccurate, except whether the article has the best title, which is not really relevant to a deletion discussion. So to insist that the sources need to be deleted or disregarded even if they are accurate and reliable as to the facts for which they are cited, serves no useful purpose other than to justify the deletion of the article on the grounds of insufficient sources—itself a dubious notion in articles about classical antiquity. If you want to add more recent sources and their analysis, fine, do it, especially if they have something useful to add to the topic. But if you don't have any, if there's no evidence that what's cited to the extant sources is in some way wrong, inaccurate, or misleading, then don't attack those sources out of sheer prejudice—the belief that their authors must somewhere, somehow, have held wrong beliefs about some other things, and therefore cannot be regarded as reliable sources for anything that they ever wrote. P Aculeius (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So to insist that the sources need to be deleted or disregarded Sources which you yourself added in the past two days! ; which you can simply copy and paste elsewhere; and which you made a point of adding in the trashiest of articles rather than actual legitimate ones which genuinely need improvement. They are not being deleted or disregarded, they were never there to begin with; if you insist on adding them to the worst place possible then the problem is a different one. Avilich (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Fall of Oricum, obviously. It's not the main subject of any of the sources, but in my view there's enough detail in enough scholarly sources to merit a brief article.—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Can you share some of those 'scholarly sources', and while you're at it, explain why 'person A surrendered this city to person B' is notable enough for an article? Avilich (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing (and adding) some material to what I rewrote yesterday, I think the original title is okay. It seems that there were two interconnected events—Caesar's bloodless capture, which is sometimes referred to, perhaps dubiously, as a "siege", and then Pompeius' retaking of the city from Caesar's deputy Acilius, which was definitely a siege, and so described in scholarly sources. So either way, "siege" seems to work now. P Aculeius (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments above. There's a decent chunk of information in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1), plus the ancient sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'decent chunk', the source for which is already in the article, consists of "the governor, delivered up the keys of the fortress to Caesar". This fails SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE. GNG requires sigcov in multiple secondary sources, and none of what you said fits that description. Avilich (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "decent chunk" of information in DGRG (which imo is not a reliable source) is verbatim Caesar, after he had disembarked his troops at PALAESTE ... marched to Oricum ... The Oricii declared their unwillingness to resist the Roman consul; and Torquatus, the governor, delivered up the keys of the fortress to Caesar. It is not notable:

We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

Ifly6 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — provides important context to Julius' campaign in the future Illyria Graeca. The deletionist arguments do not hold water.XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, do you have any opinion on the sources or the fact that this is already covered elsewhere? Avilich (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The idea that this topic is WP:NOTABLE, especially in terms of significant coverage, is laughable. Appian's entire description can be summarised, almost without losing any content other than names (because Appian writes verbosely) to Caesar went to Oricum. He then took the city without a fight. The defenders fled to Dyrrhachium. Caesar followed them. The depiction in Caes. BC is similarly short once you summarise it: Caesar landed troops and went to Oricum. The guy there wanted to resist but the Greeks refused "to fight against the imperial power of the Roman people"; (which is a NPOV description if I've ever heard one) the town surrendered; Pompeian commander was spared.

A short survey of Goldsworthy's at-least-acceptably-regarded books do not mention Oricum at all in books on the topic: Goldsworthy, Caesar's civil war (2003), mentions the city not at all. In the name of Rome (2003) says only On the night after he had landed, Caesar force-marched to Oricum ... and forced its surrender. Caesar (2006) says, on the "siege" itself, verbatim, only On the night after the landing Caesar marched against Oricum, which quickly surrendered when the townsfolk turned against the small Pompeian garrison. He then spends more time discussing BC's characterisation of the reasons the Greeks surrendered than the battle itself. The fall of this city is not notable; the city itself is, and the content here should be moved, probably there. Ifly6 (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now believe this should be merged to Caesar's invasion of Macedonia. Ifly6 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This source, which is the very first found by a Google Books search for this title, has far more than a single-sentence mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is quite relevant, although it actually refers to the attempt by Pompeius filius to retake the city following its capture by Caesar. That probably ought to be discussed in this article too, but I was a little confused about the sequence of events yesterday, and didn't have time to work out exactly what happened while rewriting it—glancing at the various sources some look like they said Pompeius took the city by storm, others that he tried and failed—I need to review them carefully to be sure of what they say. I may take a stab at it later on. Thanks for the find! P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article a bit with what Pompeius did after Caesar departed, which actually seems to have been a siege. The two events were clearly interconnected, and ought to be discussed together. Thanks to the source you found, I was able to make better sense of the other materials, and improve the article! P Aculeius (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do quote the relevant excerpt, as the only thing I'm finding is "Caesar did capture Oricum" with no elaboration whatsoever. The subsequent mention is completely unrelated to this topic. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, perhaps renamed -- A neutral name might be Oricum in the Roman civil war. The objection to Primary sources in dealing with a historical subject is stupid: they are inevitably the best sources. Secondary sources can only provide a commentary on events. If there is a conflict between primary sources that should be expressed and discussed using secondary sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary sources for the Roman republic are in fact terrible sources, not "inevitably the best". Caes BCiv is obviously partial; absolutely nobody should believe what Caes BCiv says when it "objectively" recounts that the town surrendered because they didn't want to oppose the dignity of a Roman consul. App BCiv is not a "primary source" except for us; it is an anachronistic amalgam of then-existing sources written almost two hundred years after the events themselves. Primary source errors abound in the corpus. That does not mean there is no value to those sources (as P Aculeius seems to think Avilich thinks) but it does mean they need to be analysed critically with the support of modern scholarship and are surely not "inevitably the best". Ifly6 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The only thing wrong here is that it needs renaming to a more appropriate title. The event is covered in detail by Caesar himself in 48 BC, by Appian in the second century, by George Long in the nineteenth (Decline of the Roman Republic vol. 5) and by Richard W. Westall (Caesar's Civil War: Historical Reality and Fabrication ISBN 9004356150) in the 21st century. How long does something have to be discussed and written about before it counts as lasting notability? SpinningSpark 15:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several sources have been put forward here but nobody it seems has bothered to ask the important questions, so here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. II			Trivial mention: "Pompey placed him [the governor] in command of Oricum"	✘ No
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, vol. II		? old and probably outdated	Trivial mention: "the governor, delivered up the keys of the fortress to Caesar"	✘ No
Meijer, History of Seafaring in the Classical World, p. 200			Trivial mention: "Caesar did capture Oricum"	✘ No
Richard W. Westall, Caesar's Civil War: Historical Reality and Fabrication			Trivial mention: garrison "expelled ... upon receipt of the news of Caesar's arrival"	✘ No
George Long, Decline of the Roman Republic		? old and probably outdated	Trivial mention: "Pompeius hearing of the capture of Oricum"	✘ No
Appian, Civil Wars		primary source	value not understood	✘ No
Caesar, Commentaries		primary source	value not understood	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

None of the sources count toward GNG. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that the sources seem to write so much more than your alleged summaries. And so does the article. SpinningSpark 16:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not telling the truth about the article, and you're not telling the truth about the soruces either. I'll just leave it like this until you can come up with a proper argument and source analysis. Avilich (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: my attempts to improve the article so that it is sufficiently detailed to justify its existence, includes all of the relevant and verifiable facts, and is appropriately titled—as mentioned above, it seems there was a siege, which the previous version of the article omitted to mention—have been reverted twice by Avilich, the person who nominated it for deletion on the grounds that it is too short and lacking in detail to justify its existence, and that no siege occurred. And he insists that I can't re-add any of that material before a decision has been reached about deleting the article, unless I can justify it on the article's talk page, which I have attempted to do, although I am not optimistic of convincing him. As for the so-called "source access table" shown above, it is the pure invention and opinion of one editor, and neither reflects any policy of Wikipedia, or a consensus among editors with regard to any of its claims—it masquerades as something official, and as such should be stricken from this discussion in its entirety as an improper attempt to influence the outcome. P Aculeius (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that this is relevant, and I also agree that it is improper that the AFD nominator is doing the reverting. I would have added this material myself, but chose to wait till the AFD closed to avoid wasting effort. The retaking of the city by Pompey's son is not the same event as Caesar's capture of the city (obviously) but it is connected and immediately following. It is just as relevant as Caesar's landing on the coast and approach to the city. I still think siege is a misdescription (although it is the word used in some sources). This was a naval (or amphibious) action and was part of a larger naval blockade of the entire Adriatic to try and prevent Caesar from resupplying and reinforcing. SpinningSpark 10:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the case, it would deserve mention in an article on Caesar's initial eastern campaign during the civil war. Ifly6 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there such an article? There is nothing on the Illyrian actions beyond what is in the top level article, Caesar's civil war. Arguing that an overseas deployment of seven legions under hostile conditions is not notable is really a failure of WP:COMMONSENSE. SpinningSpark 14:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if such an article exists. If it doesn't, it perhaps should. (Though, frankly, such an article should probably be more of a timeline rather than a narrative; the source material is otherwise too sparse.) Your preempt seems to imply that you think that I think that Caesar's initial eastern campaign in this war shouldn't have an article? If the content were to be put somewhere, I think it probably shouldn't be the main article (Caesar's civil war): that precedent, if applied generally, would make that article far too long. Ifly6 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, no article on the Eastern campaign exists to merge this to, you think it should exist, this is the only article we've got on the topic, and yet you are at delete. <sarcasm>That makes a lot of sense</sarcasm>. SpinningSpark 15:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about the topic, so your point is moot. The right thing to do would be to put this in a prelude section at Battle of Dyrrhachium (48 BC) or add it to Caesar's civil war (despite what Ifly6 says, it may fit); or perhaps an entirely new article dedicated to the campaign, though this should only come about as an article split. What makes no sense is to have an article whose content amounts to 'this town surrendered' + background/aftermath filler, as the keep and move side wants. Nor do the sources support a grouping of only two specific captures of one specific town to the exclusion of everything else in the same campaign: the common sense thing is to mention these events as part of the campaign itself, not separately. Avilich (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the right, common sense thing to do would be to merge this elsewhere. Deleting it would not allow that to happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the common sense thing to do is for the editor who added the content a mere two days ago to add it to the right place instead of shoehorning it into a page that is not compatible with said content, while a would-be straightforward deletion discussion is taking place, and thereby unnecessarily confusing the topic being discussed and just wasting a lot of time. Avilich (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The common-sense thing to do would be to stop obstructing work to improve the present article as Wikipedia's AFD policy encourages, on the grounds that it's "repurposing" the article by including accurate and relevant details relating to the article's initial contents. There is no policy that "significant changes should not be made to the content of articles while there is an ongoing discussion about deleting them"; that is the opposite of the actual policy. Articles should be deleted because they can't be improved, not because one editor keeps reverting all attempts to improve it. You might be referring to the article's talk page, although it's really tied up with this because you're the one who demanded that the material couldn't be added during this discussion unless discussed on the talk page—which you didn't want to do until I started the talk page discussion at your demand. And simply disagreeing with the material being added—in part because there's an AFD going on at the same time—cannot be used to justify keeping it out—much less deleting it three times, although at least two experienced editors here believe it belongs in the article. An AFD in progress cannot be used to justify preventing the improvement of an article, nor can a content dispute in the article—or a dispute about its name—be used as an argument for its deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I try to oppose the purely administrative and procedural decision of having a standalone article for this topic; it has nothing to do with the amount of content which I allow. If you feel obstructed that's just because you insist on adding stuff here and not the several other actually notable articles which need improvement and where your content additions would fit better. Avilich (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll accept that deletion is hasty (though, given the current article is based entirely on App BCiv, Caes BCiv, and MRR, this isn't that big of a deal) and amend my position. I now believe that the content here should be merged to Caesar's invasion of Macedonia. Ifly6 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you created—today—for the sole purpose of winning this deletion discussion and controlling the narrative of the article, along with the complete collection of sources. I hope you appreciate the irony of creating a content fork in order to justify the deletion of this article as a content fork of an article that didn't exist yet. But the creation of the new article doesn't make this article obsolete: the article nominated for deletion has a much narrower focus and more detail than is in, or would reasonably belong in, an article about an entire campaign. Just as modern wars have articles that are overviews of the entire war, focused on separate theatres of conflict, specific campaigns by each side, and individual battles occurring during those campaigns, there can be no fundamental objection to having articles about individual confrontations, provided there's enough detail to justify an article. And pretty much any time there is more to say about a conflict than reasonably fits in an article about a broader topic—such as an entire campaign—there is room for such an article.

By all means, develop your article—it could use more sources, including lots of citations to Greek and Roman historians, as well as other scholars that people might have access to instead of or in addition to the two very recent books you've cited for nearly all of the contents. But don't demand that your article clear the field of all other articles, such as the present one, that treat one particular episode or topic that fits within the scope of the one you've written about. If you want more sources, or some of them offer new and different perspectives, feel free to add them to the present article. You've chosen a broad topic to write about, and there's plenty of room for topics about various aspects of it. P Aculeius (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your non-topical conclusory accusations, I see no irony. This specific surrender does not meet your standard: provided there's enough detail to justify an article. SpinningSpark convinced me that deletion would be worse than moving it somewhere else. As to the article I created and your feedback, I'd appreciate it if you could move it to the in-progress article's talk page. Ifly6 (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all of the arguments above except those of nominator. That source analysis table in particular is a very poor attempt at motivated reasoning. Atchom (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the nominator keeps reverting my attempts to improve the article ahead of the closing of this discussion—this is the fourth time he's reverted to a previous state during this discussion, although multiple editors there and here seem to think that they're productive. Having abandoned his argument that changes were prohibited (1) during a deletion discussion, (2) until there was a talk page discussion, and (3) while a talk page discussion was "ongoing" (i.e. unless he agreed to the changes, even though nobody had said anything for days), he's now arguing that it's OR:SYNTH and that the burden is on the editor wishing to make improvements to prove to the satisfaction of the objecting editor that they're justified. Going to take this to ANI if it continues, but before that I thought it was relevant to this discussion, because if participants only see the reverted version, it might affect their decision about deleting the article. P Aculeius (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've pointed out this editor's ownership behaviour in the past, which gives the impression that they are the only classicist on Wikipedia. It needs to stop or be stopped. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Beckley, Oxfordshire#Amenities. viable ATD, but there's no consensus that the content is suitable for Beckley article. Star Mississippi 16:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beckley Church of England Primary School[edit]

Beckley Church of England Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGCRIT. No suitable coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the school exists but as with the vast majority of primary schools (and a number of secondaries), there is no assertion of notability or evidence of significant coverage. This was created 10+ years ago when I think the policy was softer, but the article is just currently a publicity outlet. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found two articles, but they just seem to summarise inspection reports, and they're both by the same source.[9][10]. The BBC link which @NemesisAT: mentioned in the deprod just seems to be a picture so wouldn't meet WP:SIGCOV.[11] I found some newspaper articles in the British Newspaper Archive but they're passing mentions, mostly about sports results. FozzieHey (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Beckley, Oxfordshire per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Can you expand on this? I'm not sure there's much content here that would be appropriate for the Beckley, Oxfordshire article. So if you could say what you'd think would be worth merging, that'd be great. (See also: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMESSAYS) Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its already mentioned in the "Amenities" section so more about it could be added or it could be given its own section and the information on its history probably belongs there even if the other 2 section's information doesn't such as the grades. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I personally don't see much to add other than the establishment year (and maybe expansion information) and amount of students. FozzieHey (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't typical to go into much detail about primary schools on region/area article. Possibly could mention the construction year and intake number, though even just mentioning it exists is enough. Not really much of note on the article at present to otherwise merge. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family Sized[edit]

Family Sized (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At present, the subject does not meet WP:GNG. As it stands, this is not ready to move out of the draft space. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Entertainment, Internet, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, at the very least is a case of WP:TOOSOON Pazguillermo (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have found no coverage of this subject. WP:GNG/WP:WEB are not met at this stage. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Renu Kushawaha and I will protect momentarily Star Mississippi 15:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Kumari[edit]

Renu Kumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources. It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The previous redirect should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and India. MarioGom (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an unsourced article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Renu Kushawaha and protect, is a redirect that got hijacked to be about a probably unrelated person. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete well this didn't end up being a speedy due to timing, but the reasons were applicable. Lugnuts' suggestion of a redirect target is appropriate, and I will do so following deletion as there's nothing to preserve. Star Mississippi 15:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aruban films[edit]

List of Aruban films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has very little to do with Aruban films. It's some strange collection of 1998-2006 action movies that occasionally had something to do with Aruba. The List of Caribbean films has a list of Aruban films already. Similarly, Barbados does not have a stand alone article; Aruba does not at this time need one either. OpenScience709 (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with OP. Peachncream (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:A1 and perhaps WP:IAR. this is beyond WP:INDISCRIMINATE to the point of meaninglessness. Title has nothing to do with content, and content is worthless anyway. I can’t fathom what the reasoning for this was. Article has existed for over a decade with no improvement. Suggesting WP:SNOW delete. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Caribbean films#Aruba. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment. Where is the information coming from that these are Aruban films? Like, I know it's come from IMdB, but where has their information come from? User contributions? The article for Control (2004 film), for instance, says it is a US production company and filmed in Bulgaria. How does that translate to an Aruban production? Not sure that we should not only delete, but not merge anywhere and remove the claim from the individual articles. Unless someone has some other sources, I'm inclined to call this misinformation. SpinningSpark 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems like it was created by accident or by someone working by insane troll logic. Ergo speedy delete, there’s nothing worth saving, and only then redirect. Dronebogus (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. "has appeared in multiple TV shows" is not a policy based argument, leaving this ripe for a soft delete. Star Mississippi 15:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bonavia[edit]

John Bonavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks third party coverage. Actor fails nctor and gng as none of his roles are significant.Khgk (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Khgk (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack sufficent coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, he has appeared in multiple TV shows. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Agana[edit]

Bernard Agana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer that has only played in a WP:NOTFPL league with no indication of meeting WP:GNG. None of the cited sources show anything other than basic statistical data. Google News has nothing for him. DDG has a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors and GSA and Soccerway and other stats sites. The one hit in ProQuest is about a namesake. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE search shows that Agana is notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 promotion and CSD G12 copyvio SpinningSpark 14:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filparty[edit]

Filparty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. The only source used is the official website for Filparty, which is obviously not an independent source. Searches, such as this one failed to find even one example of significant coverage from a reliable source. I can only find social media and other content created by Jessica Nono, who appears to be the creator of this platform and also the creator of this Wikipedia article. Would tag as WP:A7 but I don't think cryptocurrency projects meet the criteria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per nom, this is blatantly promotional of a non-notable subject. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. G11 as promotional spam, G12 as a copyvio (the text of the article is cut and pasted from the whitepaper), possibly A7 as web content with no credible claim of significance (if you consider cryptocurrencies to be web content). This is totally unsalvageable: it is promotional, written entirely in incomprehensible crypto-speak and there is zero claim of notability here - this cryptocurrency has received no coverage at all as far as I can tell. The creator states that they own the image used as the logo [12] so there is obviously some heavy COI involved here. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm still not 100% satisfied with the sourcing here, but it's better than it started out (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

America's Most Talented Kid[edit]

America's Most Talented Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found only passing mentions in relation to the hosts. Got a couple press releases at its debut but nothing else; no news coverage of the host and network switch. Newspapers.com gave only TV Guide listings. Deprodded because it aired on national TV, but WP:NTV dictates that not all shows airing on national TV are automatically notable if sources don't exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Not mentioned that all in sources, but probably deserves a stub because it aired on NBC and seems to be mentioned across the internet. I know it isn't exactly WP:N, but personally I believe it still deserves at least a stub. Seungri400 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Seems to be mentioned". WP:PROVEIT. Just being mentioned is not enough. What facet of WP:GNG or WP:NTV does it meet? Airing on NBC isn't an ironclad guarantee of notability:

  a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage or airs on a minor secondary cable channel.

  Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The fact it aired nationally on a major broadcast network in the US, for a full season, makes it notable. --Rob (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you not read what I posted above? Presence of sourcing is more important than length of show or notability of network. Can you prove that there are sources? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this was a current web series, I would expect multiple (many) sources with very substantial coverage, as its inclusion would depend entirely on GNG, and nowadays it's easy for for a random little creator to go viral and generate lots of Google hits. But, we're talking about a *complete* season on a major (top 3) broadcast US network in 2003. To make an analogy, if you come in last in a non-famous sport in the Olympics, you'll automatically get an article, just because its considered such an achievement just to be competing at that level. You don't need to show a huge coverage, but just need to verify you did the clearly notable thing. In addition to network status, the show has a dozen notable people involved (contestants+hosts) with their own articles. That's analogous to an unsuccessful band that had multiple members go on to become notable. Such a band would warrant an article, even if coverage of the band was limited to passing mentions in bios of its members. --Rob (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from notable people appearing on the show. That's like saying every song written by a songwriter who has a Wikipedia article should have an article too. And you're still dodging the issue that there are zero sources. Did you find any sourcing that I did not? Because WP:GNG and WP:RS supercede everything else, and this is clearly failing them both. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Where does it say that GNG supersedes everything else? GNG is not a founding principal of Wikipedia, which existed for years before GNG developed. After GNG gained consensus, it was not used to retroactively eliminate categories of things considered notable, such as Olympians, politicians of a certain level, and various other things deemed notable. Notability isn't inherited, so simply having one famous person on a show means nothing, but there is a cumulative effect of numerous things (notable hosts+notable contestants+major network). Maybe we should move to using GNG for everything, but that's a discussion for another place. As for "RS", there are reliable sources. The critical facts of the article are verifiable, although there is a lack of the indepth coverage that GNG entails, and citations should be (and can be) added for all facts. --Rob (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "There are reliable sources". Says who? No one in this AFD has proven that there are, and saying "but there are sources!" doesn't automatically make them appear in the article. Did you find sources? No. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, I actually did add nine sources *before* your above comment. So, I'm not just saying there are sources. The current citations are unfortunately, just passing mentions, in articles about performers, who started on the show. These are what you get with a quick Google search. If you have access to ProQuest (free through Wikipedia Library) you can see that there is more substantial contemporaneous coverage, which I haven't had time to integrate into the article yet. There's a substantial article by Richard Dyer [13] that is a thorough critique of the show. I cited it just now, but haven't properly incorporated/used it. There are also several articles going into detail about the experience of specific contestants on the show (not just a quick passing mention). So, if you can read ProQuest (or other news service), please do. Now, if you still feel that the sources aren't sufficient, that's fine, and I understand/respect that position. But, please don't say there are no sources. --Rob (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the sources that do mention "America's Most Talented Kid" pertains to those that participated on the show, and do not pertain to the actual show itself. Fails WP:GNG strictly in terms of sourcing, but probably can still be mentioned somewhere as far as any articles on those that participated in the show.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you counting this article (which requires a ProQuest account to read), that is cited. Not yet cited in the article, is this piece, which admittedly focusses on a couple contestants, but includes general show info such as:

    The show features kids from 16 cities across America competing in a talent competition. Each week, the candidates are scored by a panel of celebrity judges headed by 'N Sync's Lance Bass. They pick a winner from the three kids in each age category (3-7, 8-12 and 13- 15). The three finalists from each show advance to the final round to compete for the $50,000 cash prize.".

  • It's unfortunate, when this Wikipedia article was made, there were no citations to the available contemporaneous sources, which largely dropped from Google. Results still in Google tend to be more recent stores, and therefore have absolute barebones mentions of the show. The results in ProQuest are better. They give enough to have a fully cited complete article. --Rob (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a ProQuest account, so my deletion rationale wasn't counting anything from there. But if what you provided satisfies Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, perhaps they can be added to the article? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still not convinced that this passes GNG, as of all the sources added, only one is actually about the show. The others are fluff pieces on former contestants that just mention their participation in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. While no one is going to argue that "America's Most Talented Kid" is a household name or key to the cultural development of the world, it still seems notable enough to keep as an article. It's release in 2003 during still early-internet days means it will likely have disproportionately low currently available sources compared to similarly notable shows in more recent years. A MINOTAUR (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riptide (The Chainsmokers song)[edit]

Riptide (The Chainsmokers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably too soon to have an article on this song. I do not believe "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" exists at this time. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the song gets on a chart, is used in a notable film/TV show/advertisement, or goes viral on social media, we can create the article again. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite keep: It's clear that neither the article creator nor the nominator took a good look for sources (the burden of which ultimately lies with the creator). I found no less than four sources in the space of a minute; Rolling Stone, EDM.com, KS95, and Radio and Music. A simple search for sources would've prevented this discussion. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No it wouldn't, not really, because none of those sources say anything more than "the song has been released" and one line stating what the song is about, which are all suspiciously close to each other in wording that it sounds like the writers all copied the same press release – in fact, the last source IS a press release from the band/record label themselves, so it's not an independent source either. It's not about whether there are any mentions of the song in sources, it's about whether those sources are any good, and in this case they aren't, so I don't see that a one-line description from any of them are enough to make this pass WP:NSONG. But I'm going to wait and see if this song charts anywhere in the next week before making a final decision about it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the amount of sources available are minimal, finite even. The Rolling Stone source describes it as being "[an] emotive track [that] is a reflection on the need to embrace time spent with a significant other", EDM.com says "it's a classic Chainsmokers record in terms of its emotive songwriting", KS95 notes it's "about wanting to be with someone, even though it's unsure they'll stick around for the long term", and "shimmering new song". There's almost certainly enough to merit a stub article (minimal as it may be), and, given it's now charted (as you've also noted below), it should be kept in order to encourage article development. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Sean Stephens. They're in-depth and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All of your votes appear to be WP:PERNOM and so are fairly meaningless. NemesisAT (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Chainsmokers are a very successful act and we can see this article already has a substantial number of views. Thus I think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to keep this article, rather than delete it only to have to recreate it later on, creating extra work for editors. Meets WP:GNG with sources listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NemesisAT's comment. If we don't choose to keep this page, it should be redirected to The Chainsmokers discography instead of deleted, so we can easily recover the content should it be recreated. EDM fan 2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pretty sure Rolling Stone is a notable source. Weird hidden agenda against this group 5 years past their peak for whatever reason. 68.134.159.54 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You are confusing "notable source" with "in-depth coverage". The Rolling Stone article is simply an announcement of the song's release, along with a 17-word sentence stating the song's theme. Nobody can seriously describe that as "in-depth coverage". The same goes for the other sources presented above, they say nothing more than that the song was released and one line saying what it's about. That's why some editors are voting to delete, nothing to do with any imagined vendetta against the group. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep telling yourself that. 68.134.159.54 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based on charting on a couple of specialist charts, but it's not convincing. Richard3120 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No real claim of notability here, and in this state, doesn't warrant its own article. Not to veer into WP:OTHER territory, but this is honestly just one of the many song articles that stay in mainspace despite little to no notability that barely passes the WP:NSONG guidelines, an unfortunate precedent. And if the argument is that this article should be kept because the Chainsmokers are a notable act – well, notability is not generally inherited. AshMusique (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep also a Billboard article on the song being in the top 10, but the paywall hides it from me [14], another in Broadway World [15]. Even with these stubs, I think it's gotten enough traction already to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Maciejovsky[edit]

Boris Maciejovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Business, Economics, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Faulty nomination statement appears to examine only WP:GNG, the wrong notability criterion, and then claim without support that this examination applies to WP:PROF. But it doesn't. And the article doesn't appear particularly promotional to me; it reports neutrally on the subject's career milestones and research topics, as most articles on academics do, and includes some minor awards that I might not have included (the Raymond S. Nickerson Award is merely a best paper award, and I would not usually list a teaching award from the subject's employer), but that could be down to the preferences or inexperience of the article creator. Maciejovsky's citation record appears to pass WP:PROF#C1, but I'm putting it down as a weak keep because I think this is a high-citation field. The awards are insufficient for #C2 but we only need one criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Regarding notability, there is, of course, room for subjectivity; however, it seems that the profile of the academic meets the bar of "week keep," as outlined by David Eppstein. The academic and his work are featured in independent and objective sources, his teaching is evaluated publicly (ratemyprofessor), his work is moderately highly cited (google scholar), and his network is firmly established with other researchers (and their wikipedia pages). Notability for academics is met, for instance, by WP:PROF#C1. "The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure," which the article subject meets, as he was granted tenure at an R1 institution. The TED talk is also something that is rare and impactful (6,900 views on youtube) Gooseberry487 (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gooseberry487 is the article creator. TedX talks are legion, and 6,900 views for a YT video is nothing special. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The deletion process states that 'everyone including you [the article creator] is welcome to contribute to the discussion.' Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The weak keep above is by me, not Spiderone. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! Fixed it. Gooseberry487 (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree. The article is well researched and provides ample sources of notability. It′s in alignment with thousands of articles on impactful academics. VeritasOM (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only activity for this account has been to vote in this AfD. The repeated use of "impactful" suggests that this may be a sock of the article creator, Gooseberry487. Edwardx (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since you mentioned me, allow me to clearly state that I neither wrote nor encouraged the vote above. Thanks Gooseberry487 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The citations in Google Scholar appear strong: nine works over 100 citations -- even in a citation-heavy field -- seems adequate to meet WP:PROF to me. Also, while the creator does not appear to have edited very widely, the article was accepted by the AfC process. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if improved the citations are high enough, and are mostly in very good journals. ( not merely the minimal ">100" -- they are 331, 324, 216, 212, 204, 124, 107......) But many of the claimed academic appointments are appointments are as a post doc or fellow, not as a member of the faculty. An article that avoids specifying this does not give me the impression of being competently written, especially because it omits the details of the citations, which is the strongest part, as we judge WP:PROF. I would normally say, return to draft, but it's been extensively edited since its been there. I would not have approved it at AfC, because as is obvious from this nomination, it does not make the notability clear enough. So, given the actual underlying notability, I am in process of rewriting according to our usual standards. I'll finish that tomorrow this time--i cant work any further tonight. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, as the article is well sourced. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AGSB University[edit]

AGSB University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A commercial educational institution, supposedly a university, but not accredited by the authorities of the country it is located in, Switzerland. No apparent notability (WP:GNG). A Google News search reveals no coverage, and the article cites no third-party sources. The article appears to have been written for promotional purposes by the organization itself, see the talk page and the history. Sandstein 10:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Switzerland. Sandstein 10:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete promotional article for non-accredited "University" (see here for accredited schools which has accredited other schools such as SBS Swiss Business School). --hroest 20:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dangal 2. ✗plicit 08:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr 10 Movies[edit]

Enterr 10 Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Possible redirect targets are Enterr10 Television Network or Dangal 2. MarioGom (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. MarioGom (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dangal 2 with a brief mention about how the channel was rebranded. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dangal 2. Does not merit an article per WP:BCAST -- Ab207 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.